REVEAL Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The REVEAL Act aims to prevent conflicts of interest by banning individual stock trading and prediction market participation for a broad range of federal officials and their families, requiring divestment and imposing penalties for violations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, political appointees, judicial officers, and their dependent family members from owning or trading individual stocks, commodities, futures, or derivatives, and from trading on prediction markets. It requires divestment of existing holdings within specific timeframes and provides exceptions for diversified investment funds, U.S. Treasury bonds, state/municipal bonds, small business interests, and certain family trusts.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances public trust in government by eliminating potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety that arises when officials trade individual stocks while having access to sensitive information or influencing policy. It ensures officials are focused on public service, not personal financial gain, and strengthens ethical standards across the federal government.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill is overly broad, infringing on the financial privacy and investment freedom of public servants and their families. They may contend that existing ethics laws are sufficient and that a blanket ban could discourage qualified individuals from seeking public office, particularly those with complex financial portfolios or spouses with independent careers.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, adding Section 13151 to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Definitions for Prohibitions on Trading and Ownership
This section defines who is subject to the new rules, referred to as 'covered individuals,' and what types of financial assets are restricted, called 'covered investments.' Covered individuals include Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, political appointees, judicial officers, and their spouses and dependent children. Covered investments are broadly defined as securities, commodities, futures, or synthetic economic interests, but specifically exclude diversified investment funds, U.S. Treasury bills/notes/bonds, state or municipal bonds, interests in small businesses, and limited liability companies for personal residences.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear, comprehensive definitions are essential to ensure the bill's effectiveness and prevent loopholes, covering all individuals who might have access to sensitive information or influence policy, thereby enhancing public trust.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the definition of 'covered individual' is too broad, potentially including low-level political appointees or spouses whose occupations are unrelated to government influence, creating undue burdens and discouraging public service.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for comprehensive ethics rules to prevent conflicts of interest against potential overreach that could impact individuals with minimal influence or discourage qualified individuals from seeking public office.
Section 2, adding Section 13152 to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Prohibition on Trading on Prediction Markets
This provision explicitly prohibits all covered individuals from entering into any agreement, contract, or transaction on prediction markets. These are markets where the outcome depends on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or extent of a specific event or contingency. The bill clarifies that this ban does not apply to lawful insurance for which the insured holds a lawful insurable interest.
Section 2, adding Section 13153 to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Prohibition on Ownership and Trading of Covered Investments
This section broadly prohibits covered individuals from directly or indirectly owning or trading 'covered investments' such as individual stocks, commodities, futures, and derivatives. It mandates divestment of existing holdings at fair market value within 180 days for current officials and 90 days for new officials. The bill also provides for Certificates of Divestiture, which can help defer capital gains taxes, and outlines specific exceptions for occupational trading by spouses or dependent children, and for certain family trusts where the covered individual has no control or contribution.
Section 2, adding Section 13154 to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Penalties for Violations
This provision establishes penalties for covered individuals who violate the prohibitions on prediction market trading or covered investment ownership/trading. Penalties include a fee equal to 10% of the value of the agreement, contract, or transaction in violation, and disgorgement of any profits, with both payable into the Treasury. It explicitly prohibits using official allowances (like the Members' Representational Allowance) or campaign funds to pay these penalties. Furthermore, each supervising ethics office is required to publish details of assessed fines, the reasons for them, and their results on a publicly available website.
This provision allows covered individuals to defer capital gains taxes on assets divested to comply with the bill's requirements. It achieves this by treating the REVEAL Act as a 'Federal conflict of interest statute' and covered individuals as 'eligible persons' for the purposes of Section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Section 2, adding Section 13153(c) to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for integrating new ethics requirements with existing tax code provisions to facilitate compliance and mitigate financial burdens on individuals required to divest assets.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is crucial for fair implementation, as it prevents officials from being penalized with significant tax burdens for complying with new ethics rules, making mandatory divestment more financially feasible and equitable.
Case against: Critics might argue that this tax benefit softens the impact of the divestment requirement, potentially reducing the perceived cost of public service for those with large, appreciated portfolios, and could be seen as a special carve-out for wealthy officials.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant tax savings for affected individuals with substantial capital gains, but no direct federal revenue impact beyond the deferral of tax payments.
This provision allows a supervising ethics office to grant an exemption for covered investments held in a family trust, but only under very strict conditions. These conditions include that no covered individual is a grantor of the trust, contributed any covered investment to it, or has any authority over the trustee. Additionally, the grantor of the family trust must be or have been a family member of the covered individual.
Section 2, adding Section 13153(e)(2) to Chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code.
Why it matters:It is standard practice to define specific carve-outs for complex financial arrangements like trusts, which often involve multiple parties and long-term planning, to ensure the bill targets active conflicts of interest rather than passive family holdings.
Case for: Proponents argue this exemption prevents undue hardship for officials whose family wealth is managed in trusts over which they have no control, ensuring the bill targets active conflicts of interest rather than passive or inherited family holdings.
Case against: Opponents might suggest that even passive interests in family trusts could still present an appearance of conflict, and that any exemption, regardless of how narrowly defined, could be perceived as a potential loophole that undermines the bill's intent.
Estimated impact: Limited impact, as the conditions for exemption are very restrictive, affecting only a small subset of covered individuals with specific, independently managed trust arrangements.